Fakultet for Humaniora, Samfunnsvitenskap og lærerutdanning
«Paper dictionaries are sooo outdated!!!»
- A study on Norwegian pupils’ look-up strategies in the English subject
Thor Øyvind Nilsen og Runar Mandal
Masteroppgave i Lærerutdanning 5.-10. trinn Mai 2015
1
i
Acknowledgements
Now that we are at the end of the road, we feel both happy and a bit sad. It feels great to have completed this semester and stand here, knowing that we were able to finish this paper.
However, this represents the final chapter for our time here at the University, and we must now find our own path in life to explore. We would like to use this opportunity to give thanks to our supervisor, Hilde Brox, for guidance throughout the whole of our study. Thank you for believing in us, keeping us motivated and for all of the great conversations. We would also like to give thanks to our informants for making this project possible. We are particularly grateful towards the teacher who replied on our e-mail and accepted to participate in the study. Finally we would like to thank each other for the support and effort we have shown throughout the whole project.
Tromsø, 15.05.2015 Thor Øyvind Nilsen Runar Mandal
ii
iii
Abstract
This study investigates Norwegian pupils’ choice of look-up strategies in the English subject, and why they use these specific strategies. Additional questions are:
-Do the pupils use the same strategies at home, as they do in school?
-Where have they obtained/learned these strategies?
-Are the pupils competent enough to evaluate the quality of the results generated from the strategies?
Our methods of data collection were interviews and a questionnaire. 21 informants
participated in our study; one class of 20 pupils in a lower secondary school in Tromsø and their English teacher. All 20 pupils participated in our questionnaire, while only four of them were singled out for interviewing. The teacher were also interviewed.
Through our research methods we found that Google Search Engine and Google Translate are the dominant look-up strategies amongst the pupils, and that the main reasons for using these specific strategies are their ability to be 1) fast, 2) effective and 3) generate quality results.
The results show that the strategies are mostly self-obtained, even though several pupils state that they have learned them from the teacher/school. The results both from our interviews and from our questionnaire indicate that the pupils’ ability to evaluate the quality of the strategies varies within the class. It is argued in compliance with relevant theory and the results that the ability to evaluate the quality of the results generated from the strategies is dependent on the individual pupil’s proficiency level in the English language. Results indicate that the pupils with a high proficiency level are more capable of verifying quality compared to pupils with mediocre or a lesser proficiency level.
Our findings are not transferable to the whole population of Norwegian pupils, but we have received valuable insight in the researched area and found tendencies which can be discussed in correlation with bigger populations. However, we argue that the results from our
questionnaire can be transferred to the rest of the classes in the same lower secondary school, as one whole class participated in this method.
iv
v
Sammendrag
Denne studien undersøker Norske elevers valg av oppslagsstrategier i Engelskfaget, og hvorfor elevene bruker akkurat disse strategiene. Ytterligere forskningsspørsmål er som følger:
-Bruker elevene de samme strategiene hjemme som de gjør på skolen?
-Hvor har elevene lært å bruke disse strategiene?
-Er elevene i stand til å vurdere kvaliteten på resultatene som strategiene generer?
Våre forskningsmetoder for innsamling av data var intervju og en spørreundersøkelse. 21 informanter deltok i studiet vårt; en klasse på 20 elever fra en ungdomsskole i Tromsø og deres engelsklærer. Samtlige 20 elever deltok i spørreundersøkelsen vår, mens bare fire ble håndplukket til intervju. Læreren ble også intervjuet.
Gjennom våre forskningsmetoder fant vi ut at Google Search Engine og Google Translate er de dominerende oppslagsstrategiene blant elevene, og at hovedgrunnene for bruken av disse strategiene er deres evne til å være 1) rask, 2) effektiv og 3) generere kvalitetsresultater.
Resultatene viser at strategiene er hovedsakelig selvlært, selv om en del av elevene sier at de har lært dem fra lærer/skole. Både resultatene fra intervjuene våre og spørreundersøkelsen antyder at elevenes evne til å vurdere kvaliteten på resultatene som er generert fra strategiene varierer innad i klassen. Det er argumentert for, i tilknytning til relevant teori og resultatene, at evnen til å vurdere kvaliteten på resultatene er avhengig av den enkelte elevs nivå i Engelskfaget. Resultatene antyder at elevene på et høyt nivå er mer kapable til å bekrefte kvaliteten sammenlignet med elevene på middels til lavt nivå.
Funnene våre er ikke overførbare til hele populasjonen av norske elever, men vi har mottatt verdifull innsikt innad i området og funnet tendenser som kan bli diskutert og knyttet til større populasjoner. Vi argumenterer imidlertid for at resultatene fra spørreundersøkelsen vår kan bli overført til resten av elevene på den samme ungdomsskolen, siden en hel klasse deltok på denne metoden.
vi
vii
Table of Content
Table of Content ... vii
1 Introduction ... 1
1.1 Background ... 1
1.2 Our motivation ... 2
1.3 Research question ... 3
1.4 Hypothesis ... 3
1.5 Limitations ... 4
1.6 Outline ... 4
2. Theoretical Framework ... 5
2.1 Vocabulary acquisition in second language learning ... 5
2.2 The role of dictionaries ... 6
2.3 Previous research ... 7
2.3 The digital competence of the digital generation ... 8
2.3.1 Digital competence ... 9
2.3.2 Digital Natives ... 12
3. Methodology ... 17
3.1 Our study ... 17
3.2 Qualitative versus quantitative methods ... 18
3.3 Selection of informants ... 19
3.4 Methods of data collection ... 20
3.4.1 Questionnaire ... 20
3.4.2 Conducting the questionnaire ... 20
3.4.3 The qualitative interview ... 21
3.4.4 Conducting the interviews ... 23
3.4.5 Transcription ... 24
3.6 Reliability ... 24
viii
3.7 Validity ... 25
3.8 Ethical and methodical challenges ... 26
4. Results ... 29
4.1 Interview with Teacher ... 29
4.1.1 Vocabulary ... 29
4.1.2 Dictionaries ... 30
4.1.3 Digital strategies ... 31
4.2 Questionnaire ... 32
4.2.1 Questionnaire results ... 33
4.3 Focus group - Interviews with the pupils ... 39
4.3.1 Harald and Håkon ... 40
4.3.2 Vocabulary ... 40
4.3.3 Dictionaries ... 41
4.3.4 Digital strategies ... 41
4.3.5 Mari and Anne ... 42
4.3.6 Vocabulary ... 43
4.3.7 Dictionaries ... 44
4.3.8 Digital strategies ... 45
5. Discussion ... 47
5.1 Look-up strategies ... 47
5.2 Why do the pupils use their specific strategies? ... 48
5.3 How were the strategies obtained? ... 49
5.4 Evaluating the strategies ... 50
6. Conclusion ... 53
6.1 Attempts to answer ... 53
7. Resource Guide ... 55
7.1 Online Dictionaries ... 55
ix
7.2 Offline Dictionaries and applications ... 61
7.3 Dictionary phone application ... 63
7.4 Our evaluation ... 65
8. References ... 67
1
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
The paper dictionary has for a long time been the dominant source for finding translations and definitions of words, both within the educational environment, in schools and in ordinary, domestic spheres. Ever since the growth of the English language and its ascending role in Norwegian people’s lives, the paper dictionary has been the commanding strategy when met with unfamiliar words. The paper dictionary has always been an essential part of learning a second language, functioning as a tool that helps and assists the learner throughout his/her educational course. The dictionary provides a complementary source of information to the teacher, making it so that the learners can work more independently. The dictionary is also important for the learners’ vocabulary acquisition, both through monolingual and bilingual types.
However, after the technological development and the advent of computers and the Internet, the paper dictionary’s assertive position is in a threatened state. We are now in a situation where the paper dictionary no longer serves as a monopoly for attaining information, as the technological development has brought with it a myriad of digital tools and media that provide the same function as their predecessor. There is a growing trend amongst young learners in using digital sources to collect information, and Internet websites like Wikipedia and Google Translate are commonly used sources not only in the pupils’ spare time, but in their school hours as well.
Technology has also received a strong role in education. It started with computer labs, but today it is becoming more common that every pupil in Norway has their own personal computer available in the classroom in both lower- and upper secondary schools. Computers have many beneficial functions toward academic purposes. Writing essays, editing and finding information has become more efficient than it was before. Computers and the Internet have drastically changed the way we relate to information, as the amount of information that these innovations give access to is immense. The pupils are today exposed to an endless current of information through the Internet, and the risk of getting overwhelmed by the amount of information is far greater today than it was in the past. The strong position of digital technology in contemporary society has resulted in an emphasis on digital skills in The
2
National Curriculum for Knowledge Promotion, which now considers digital skills as one of the five basic skills.
1.2 Our motivation
Both of us, the authors of this paper, have grown up in the digital era and are shaped and influenced by technology, mainly the computer and the Internet. When we attended primary- and lower secondary school, our primary sources of information in the English subject were the teacher, the textbook and the paper dictionary. When we needed to know the English translation for a Norwegian word, or the other way around, we usually asked the teacher or consulted a dictionary. This changed when we started upper secondary school and got our own portable computers, also known as laptops. The purchase of laptops resulted in the development of digital strategies, and off-line dictionaries such as Clue were dominant in the English subject at the time. As we did most of our work on the computers, we discovered that these digital dictionaries made our work within the subject much easier. The paper dictionary had by now transitioned from being an important source of information to being a “waste of time”, seeing, as there were digital options that provided us with the same service. Past upper secondary school and starting University, our strategies changed from off-line dictionaries to online dictionaries, where Tritrans and Thesaurus were the dominant ones. In addition to online dictionaries, Google Search Engine was also frequently used in order to find sites that would provide us with specific information.
During our practice periods, we have visited many different schools where we practiced our teaching. In many of the schools visited, we observed that there was an underlying digital culture amongst the pupils. Sites and applications like Facebook and Instagram were frequently used topics for conversation, and a wide range of computer games and online games were often mentioned and discussed. We got the impression that digital technology were a big part of their lives. Despite these observations and impressions, we were unable to fully investigate their digital habits in an educational setting.
Combining both the fact that we, the authors, are favoring digital sources regarding the attainment of information, and these pre-mentioned observations and impressions we got from our practice periods, we felt that it would be interesting to investigate pupils’ habits towards finding information.
3
1.3 Research question
Our curiosity towards the pupils’ digital habits eventually led us to the following research question:
Which look-up strategies do Norwegian pupils use in order to find translations and definitions of words in the English subject, and why do they use these specific strategies?
The first part of our research question speaks of which look-up strategies the pupils use in order to find this specific information. This part is considerably forthright, as we are asking for nothing more than what their strategies are. The term look-up strategy is in this paper defined as the specific strategies that are used for finding translations and definitions. The word strategy simply means which source, method, instrument, tool or website that is used for finding translations and definitions.
The second part of our research question concerns the question of why the pupils use their specific source, method, instrument, tool or website of choice. This is the more extensive part of our research question, and the part that transforms our research from being a cursory study to being more of an in-depth study.
Additional questions we will be looking to answer are:
-Do the pupils use the same strategies at home, as they do in school?
-Where have they obtained/learned these strategies?
-Are the pupils competent enough to evaluate the quality of the results generated from the strategies?
1.4 Hypothesis
We are entering this research project with a hypothesis. Based on our own preferences regarding look-up strategies and our experiences from our practice periods, we believe that the majority of the pupils use digitalized look-up strategies. This hypothesis will to an extent govern our selection of theoretical framework for this paper.
4
1.5 Limitations
In our study, we have based our research solely on one single class and their teacher.
Considering the modest size of our samples, this confine our possibility to transfer our findings onto a big scale population.
In addition, the fact that our specific and narrowed area of focus is scarcely researched, we are forced to use theory that is not directly tied to our research question, but still theory that we can use to draw similarities and tendencies from to enlighten our own research question.
1.6 Outline
Our study will be arranged in a traditional manner: Theoretical framework, methodology, results and analysis, discussion and conclusion.
In chapter 2 we will look into the theoretical perspectives surrounding our research field:
vocabulary acquisition in second language learning, the roles of dictionaries and the digital competence of the digital generation. This chapter will consist of an overview of the difference between first and second language acquisition, why learning vocabulary is
important in second language acquisition and how we learn words in a second language. This chapter will also examine the different aspects of paper based and digital dictionaries and the results other studies show from implementing digital dictionaries in education. Theory concerning digital competence and the digital skills of today’s youth will also be discussed.
In chapter 3 we will describe the methods of data collection used in our study. This chapter shows our considerations regarding the methods of data collection, namely interviews and questionnaire, and the participants involved, in addition to the reliability and the validity of our study and ethical and methodical challenges that we have experienced.
In chapter 4 the results from the interviews and the questionnaire will be presented and made clear.
In chapter 5 we will discuss the results presented in the previous chapter in correlation with our research question, our additional questions and the theoretical framework presented in chapter 2.
5
In chapter 6, we will draw a conclusion and try to answer our research question and additional questions generated from the research question. We will present the main findings and issues, and establish eventual concerns that surround our topic.
In the final chapter, chapter 7, we will present a resource guide, which lists a selection of digital tools, dictionaries and applications that we find beneficial towards the English subject.
This guide describes both the positive and negative aspects of the different digital tools, dictionaries and applications. We created this guide with hope that it would be helpful for teachers and pupils learning a second language.
2. Theoretical Framework
Since we will be focusing on look-up strategies in a second language environment, our field of study is affected by several theoretical disciplines. Because of this we will be exploring some disciplines more than others. We justify this with the fact that we do not have room for exploring all the different disciplines in detail, and feel that our solution is satisfactory for presenting an agreeable and relevant framework for our theory.
2.1 Vocabulary acquisition in second language learning
Learning a second language is different from learning a first language. Our main language is picked up at an early age through constant exposure. In this process, we obtain the capacity to comprehend the language and produce words and sentences. Second language acquisition however, is often mainly attained through our first language. We rely on our main language in order to learn the functions of the foreign language so that we are able to communicate and utilize it correctly.
According to Drew and Sørheim (2009), vocabulary is an essential part of learning a second language: “One cannot emphasize enough the importance of vocabulary for the foreign language learner. Not knowing the words we need in order to express what we want to say is extremely frustrating, and will seriously affect our ability to communicate” (Drew & Sørheim, 2009:159). Vocabulary is important for communication, be it through reading, writing,
speaking or listening, and thus it is crucial for educators to focus on developing the learners’
vocabulary and strengthen their mental lexicon.
Language learning is achieved through comprehending the meaning of words and being able to use them properly in different context. Vivian Cook (2001) describes four disciplinary
6
categories for learning words sufficiently. The four categories are forms of the word, grammatical properties, word combinations and meaning. The forms of the word are understood as how the word is pronounced and how it is spelled, meaning that every individual speaker of the language has the understanding that a word is spelled in a specific way and is pronounced in a specific way according to the rules of the language itself.
Grammatical properties have to do with the grammatical aspects of the word. This includes what function the word has in a sentence, be it a noun, a verb, an adjective etc., how sentences are structured around the specific word and how the word changes from one form to another depend on the tense of the word. Lexical properties combine the different combinations the word conventionally appears in, and the appropriateness of the word; in which contexts the word might be used and in which contexts the word should be omitted. The last category concerns the semantic part of the word, the actual meaning. A word often has a general meaning that is generic for most of the language speakers/learners, but can also have a more specific meaning according to context.
Educators play an important role for pupils learning a second language when it comes to vocabulary development. They write new difficult words on the blackboard so every pupil can observe them, they discuss with their pupils the different forms of the words, their
grammatical purpose, and examples of how the words can be used in sentences and their definitions. Dictionaries can also assist pupils in learning words through Cook’s four
categories for vocabulary. However, the users must comprehend this information on their own instead of receiving it through their educators.
The pupils’ choice of look-up strategies is also likely to have an important impact on their vocabulary and second language development. If the look-up strategy is unreliable and the pupil lacks the competence to evaluate the reliability of the strategy, the results could sometimes turn out wrong, and the pupil is left with a misconception of what the word actually means and in what contexts it can be used. Schools and educators must therefore promote efficient use of look-up strategies and inform of the negative effects improper look- up strategies can have on second language learning.
2.2 The role of dictionaries
Traditional, paper-based dictionaries used to be one of the most important tools in learning a second language, and in language learning in general. When met with unfamiliar words, the commanding strategy was often to leaf through bundles of pages in the printed encyclopedia
7
until the specific word appeared. However, after the technological progress a few decades ago, easier and more accessible alternatives to the paper dictionary started to emerge, and digitalized tools and strategies for finding words and all of their aspects has now removed the status of the paper dictionaries as the only place to find words.
2.3 Previous research
A number of studies have been conducted on the use of digital dictionaries and their effect on different aspects of language learning. In a study from 2013, Lin Jin looks at foreign language learners’ perception of online bilingual dictionaries among students enrolled in postsecondary language courses in the United States, along with their look-up behaviors while reading, writing, listening and speaking. One of her questions was the basic question whether online dictionaries are in fact beneficial for foreign language learners. Jin found that they: “Provide helpful and convenient assistance for FL learner’s access to and learning of lexical meanings and forms in reading, writing, listening and speaking tasks, as well as word pronunciation in listening and speaking tasks (Jin, 2013:524). As the digital dictionaries are easily accessible on any computer with an Internet connection, it is likely to believe that pupils often will resort to these kinds of digital look-up strategies than other time-consuming strategies, such as the paper dictionary. In addition, when confronted with Jin’s findings that digital dictionaries provide helpful and convenient assistance, we know that there is justification behind choosing digital strategies.
In a study from 2011, Aud-Mari Langegard looks at how digital dictionaries are used by young Norwegian learners of English as a foreign language. In her study, she asked the learners what type of dictionary they prefer in English. The results show that 68,5 % of the participants preferred using digital dictionaries and 24,1 % paper dictionaries (Langegard, 2011:63). This coincides with our hypotheses that the majority of the pupils use digital look- up strategies; that printed media is declining in terms of usage and digital media is on the rise.
As a follow-up question, she asks the learners to state their reasons for preferring digital dictionaries. The most favorable feature and the most important reason for using online dictionaries, was speed (46 %), followed by convenience (38%) and ending with quality on a surprisingly low percentage of importance (13%) (Langegard, 2011:64). This result is
interesting, mainly because the learners value speed and convenience over quality and by a large margin as well. In Langegard’s view, pupils prefer quick results rather than the time- consuming nature of paper dictionaries and that online dictionaries are easily accessed on
8
one’s computer, thus giving more time for the actual assignment. Online dictionaries are efficient in the sense that one types in the word in question, instead of spending time locating it, which is the case for the paper dictionaries.
The fact that the participants in Langegard’s study significantly deprioritize quality raises some intriguing questions: Are the learners indifferent to the quality of the outcome when using digital look-up strategies, as long as the digital tools and dictionaries they use can provide information relatively quick? Or are the learners’ competence and proficiency in digital dictionaries at such a high level that they are capable of knowing and distinguishing between the dictionaries of low quality and those of high quality?
In a study by Blikstad-Balas and Hvistendahl (2013), they investigate the role of Wikipedia in the classroom. Wikipedia is a popular site in relation to school and schoolwork according to the previously mentioned authors. In their study, they asked the pupils to state what they consider to be the advantages and disadvantages of using Wikipedia. A main tendency that was found regarding this question was that it is easy to use Wikipedia, easy to read from it and that it is fast. On the other hand, another main tendency was that one can not be certain that the information coming from Wikipedia is reliable or not. Considering Wikipedia’s popularity among young learners, one could assume that the reliability of the information is not emphasized from the pupils’ perspective as equally important compared to the degree of effectiveness and simplicity that the site holds. Blikstad-Balas and Hvistendahl shares this view, stating that “These reasons relate to practical issues rather than to the overall quality of Wikipedia” (Blikstad-Balas & Hvistendahl, 2013:44) The authors also make a point related to the development of critical thinking and digital literacy, discussing that these aspects of digital competency seem unattainable if the pupils are only using one source of information.
Unlike digital dictionaries and other digital sites and tools that function as translators and/or as means of finding definitions, Wikipedia is a site which provides information and
knowledge about something. However, based on the fact that Wikipedia is a digital source, we feel that some of the points that the authors make is transferable to digital strategies as a whole and thus to our own study.
2.3 The digital competence of the digital generation
The previous mentioned studies show that pupils prefer using digital tools and dictionaries rather than paper dictionaries. It is therefore significant to discuss if today’s pupils are capable of using digital look-up strategies efficiently, if they have the required digital skills to so and
9
how digital skills are reflected in the competence aims for the English subject in LK-06. We will also look into the beliefs that today’s youth have remarkable technological skills, being more advanced than previous generations.
2.3.1 Digital competence
“Digital competence” is a central concept in most current debates on education. The term appears in a variety of contexts, yet without a clear, unifying definition (Ilomäki et. al, 2014).
The discussion revolves, among other things, around what kind of knowledge is important in order to take advantage of the opportunities that come with technology, and how technology can be beneficial for learning. Schools are responsible for helping and preparing their pupils to find their role in society. As today’s society is infused with technology, should not schools therefore promote digital competence more than ever?
The term digital competence might generally be understood as having the skills and the knowledge to use computers and the Internet. The term has been well defined in international educational environments, but this is not to say that these definitions of the term will fit into the Norwegian educational system. Ola Erstad (2010) has tried to break the term down and adapt it to Scandinavian standards. He adds a cultural aspect, explaining that an important part of the concept of teaching digital competence should entail observing today’s youth true identity, how they learn and what they need to learn. The cultural conditions of today are different from what they were generations ago, and both the new generation of learners and the society have changed, which calls for change in the learning and teaching of competence as well. Erstad describes the term as both a condition for the usage of new media and a goal in itself:
Digital competence is acquired by the young through every-day culture, and it constitutes a condition for how they use new media. It is with this foundation of experience and knowledge that the youth meet the school. The school’s task will then be to further build on this foundation, to challenge it and to fabricate new insight and cognition into a goal for the education. [our transl] (Erstad, 2010:17)
Competence is valuable in two ways: One is the ability to receive and analyze, to listen, read and understand. The other is the ability to express oneself and produce, to talk and to write.
Erstad stresses the significance of both, emphasizing that both have to be considered in the definition of the term. Competence also demonstrates a certain plan of action and judgement,
10
which is a combination of skill, knowledge and attitude. It is not only a question of having the skills and the knowledge to resolve a problem, but also a question of acquiring strategies and routines for using the skill and the knowledge one already possesses. Erstad lists several components that constitute the foundation of digital competence based on the framework of today’s school:
Basic skills Opening software, assort and save information on the computer, and other basic skills in using computers and software.
Downloading/uploading Downloading/uploading different types of information from/to the Internet.
Searching Knowledge about information and how to access it.
Navigating Being able to navigate in digital network, computer games etc., i.e. learning strategies for Internet usage.
Classifying Being able to organize information in relation to a classification, genre and so on.
Integrating Being able to compare and compile different types of information in relation to multimodal texts.
Evaluating Being able to assess and evaluate if the Internet search has been productive.
Being able to evaluate the quality, relevance, objectivity and utility of the information found (source criticism).
Communicating Being able to communicate information and express oneself through different media.
Cooperating Being able to engage in net-based, learning relations with others, and to use digital technology for cooperation and participation in networks.
Creation Being able to produce and compile different types of information such as multimodal texts, create home pages etc. The ability to develop something new by using specific digital tools and software. Remixing.
[our transl] (Erstad, 2010:101/102)
The table signifies the importance of handling information that is found on the Internet and through other digital sources; emphasizes the ability to use, save, assort, download/upload, organize, evaluate, compare, compile, distinguish, access and produce different types of information, and encouraging pupils towards critical thinking when it comes to digital sources. Erstad also says that these components may change over time, and new components can be added to the list.
Rune J. Krumsvik presents another model of digital competence based on Erstad’s, but where he finds other aspects to be equally important:
11 9. Fundamental ICT-Skills
10. Pedagogical-didactical ICT-judgement 11. Learning strategies and metacognition
12. Digital bildung (sic. from the Norwegian word «danning»)
[our transl] (Krumsvik, 2007:71)
Similar to Erstad’s components of digital competence, the first two objectives relate to the basic digital skills in order to use technology. The two last components on the other hand, describe digital competence in greater detail. Krumsvik suggests that digital competence can be achieved through learning strategies, explaining that the various learning strategies acquired by the pupils in order to handle the different digital challenges are closely related to how well they master the use of digital tools in an educational setting. Also, he states that the digital competence of the teachers themselves are equally important for equipping pupils with the right set of tools and strategies in order to survive in the growing current of digital
influence.
Digital skills is one of five basic skills constituted in The National Curriculum for Knowledge Promotion from 2006, or Kunnskapsløftet (hereafter LK-06), alongside with writing, reading, speaking and arithmetic. Digital skills in the English subject is defined as:
Digital skills in English means being able to use a varied selection of digital tools, media and resources to assist language learning, to communicate in English and to acquire relevant knowledge in the subject of English (…) This further involves using digital sources in written texts and oral communication and having a critical and independent attitude to the use of sources. Digital skills involve developing knowledge about copyright and protection of personal privacy through verifiable references to sources (LK-06).
The Knowledge Promotion’s definition emphasizes independence towards digital tools, where pupils should learn to operate and navigate through the different digital media in a self-
regulated fashion and also be able to evaluate different qualities of tools and develop
knowledge about ownership of information and the proper ways of using information found.
In the competence aims found in the English subject curriculum from year 8-10, there are several aims connected with digital tools and the usage of digital tools, e.g. as found under the category of Language Learning: “The pupils shall be able to select different digital resources and other aids and use them in an independent manner in own language learning” (LK-06)
12
and under the category of Written Communication: “The pupils shall be able to use digital tools and formal requirements for information processing, text production and communication (LK-06). However, the competence aims have been criticized to some degree for their nature of being less ambitious compared to how digital skills are presented in both the general plan of K-06 and the specific plan for the English subject.
Andreas Lund (2007) states in his article ICT and EFL: What can we now do with language?
that the national curriculum has had a change of view when it comes to ICT (Information and Communication Technology); that it has gone from being viewed as “mere tools that require instrumental skills” to “ICTs as a type of cultural expansion” (Lund, 2007:31). As viewed in previous national curriculums, ICT has had a more confined definition where the
instrumentality was the focal point, and where the use of ICT was narrowed down to the ability to operate and use digital tools. In the contemporary national curriculum, however, the term is viewed in a cultural light with focal points such as authenticity, online communication and critical thinking. In spite of this transformation, Lund argues that the ambitious and detailed descriptions of the requirements of digital skills as a basic skill are not recognized in the competence aims of the English subject. The competence-based aims are broad and vague and seemingly less emphasized than other competencies, the exception being the category of communication where ICT seems to have a strong position.
Erstad and Krumsvik discuss the digital skills which is required in order to be digital
competent. We believe that pupils who use digital look-up strategies should especially be able to separate between reliable and unreliable digital tools and dictionaries. If not, they might be left with a misconception of what words and translations actually mean and in what context it can be used. This might affect their development in their second language. Therefore, the ability to evaluate the reliability of digital tools and websites, use them correctly and assess them critically are vital skills in order to use digital look-up strategies properly. However, these basic skills are only partly reflected in the competence goals for English in LK-06. Are pupils able to evaluate the digital dictionaries and tools they use, and do they get practice in how to evaluate them?
2.3.2 Digital Natives
Since today’s youth are raised in a digital society, many believe that they are superior to older generations regarding practicing technology and how to use it efficiently. The term digital
13
native was first mentioned in Marc Prensky’s article “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants” in 2001. It has become a popular term, especially among teachers. Prensky defines the term as people who are native speakers of the digital language of computers, video games and the Internet. “They have spent their entire lives surrounded by and using computers, videogames, digital music players, video cams, cell phones, and all the other toys and tools of the digital age” (Prensky, 2001). According to Prensky, the older generations are digital immigrants.
They were not born into the digital world, but they were introduced and adapted to the newly developed technology of the modern society.
According to Prensky (2010), it is a ‘great mistake’ for teachers to first teach themselves how different technology and software works, before letting their pupils use them. He states that it is more beneficial if pupils learn it by themselves, teach each other, and then teach it to their educator. His reason for this statement is that pupils might prefer using other digital tools than what their teacher favours and promotes to them. In their book Virtual Schooling, Kanna, Gillis and Culver (2009) agree with Prensky’s statement that pupils are more capable to find and learn by themselves which technology and digital tools are more profitable towards their learning: “For the first time in history, our children are teaching us! They are driving the bus on technological change and letting us ride along when we can manage to hop on” (Kanna et al., 2009:121). Kanna et al. further describe that the vast increase of technology and gadgets in our daily lives have given pupils a wide range of ways to learn new things. Therefore, it has become more important than ever for the pupils to become self-directed learners.
Prensky believes that pupils already are digital competent since they grew up in a society filled with technology. They have developed their own digital look-up strategies and are more qualified to distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources than their educators. With this in mind, how can we be certain that the look-up strategies pupils’ use is sufficient if they are left to themselves?
The statement Kanna et. al make regarding that we are now being taught by our children is questionable. Today’s youth might be digitally competent in terms of operating technical devices, but is that sufficient enough? Andrew A. Zucker believes this not to be true. In his book Transforming Schools with Technology he says “People are now able to quickly find
14
more information on almost any subject than was ever before possible. However, this does not necessarily mean that students, in particular, are able to judge the reliability of
information they find” (Zucker, 2008:204). Zucker mentions a test developed by the Educational Testing Service (ETS), where they tested information and communication technology literacy among thousands of American students at several institutions. The results showed that many students had problems of narrowing online searches, evaluating web pages objectivity, credibility and opportunities. “Only 35 percent of students selected the correct revision» (Zucker, 2008:204).
Zucker discusses further the effects technology can have on education. He states, “the days of wondering whether technology can improve elementary and secondary schools are over”
(Zucker, 2008:189). However, he believes technology is still ‘a work in progress’, but it, given time, can transform schools for the better: “But digital tools are not magic. Introducing laptops or other tools has to be accompanied by efforts to teach higher-order thinking and by aiming at other challenging goals, not just teaching the old basic skills” (Zucker, 2008:193).
Even though today’s pupils have a high understanding of how to use technology, it does not mean that they are capable of evaluating the reliability of different websites, digital tools etc.
Zucker states that schools need to aim their attention towards further teaching of critical thinking, inquiry and problem-solving in order to successfully implement technology in schools and pupils’ study habits.
Brian Cowan examines in his article “Why ‘Digital Natives’ Aren’t Necessarily Digital Learners” if pupils truly have as advanced digital skills as many believe them to have. It can seem as if Cowan is against the implementation of electronics and digital tools, but he assures that he is a ‘technophile’, believing that they can be effective and beneficial towards learning.
He states that results towards learning do not rely on the technology that is being used, but rather on the teacher’s expertise and if pupils are motivated: “It will not necessarily make learning easy or fun. It can, however, make learning more accessible, and, if properly applied, more effective” (Cowan, 2011). Cowan investigates the different myths that has emerged in today’s technological society. One of these myths, are that “digital natives are automatically digital learners” (Cowan, 2011). He defines ‘digital natives’ as kids raised in a digital
household and that are special and exceed previous generations. Cowan mentions an example
15
where he once was appointed the lecturer for a class of digital natives. Since he was to teach the digital generation, he decided to hand out a single page detailing course instruction that explained how to log on the course’s website. The web page contained everything the pupils needed to know about the course (the course outline, materials for different lessons,
information etc), “Yet in the next-to-last class of the semester, students were still asking basic administrative questions that had been clearly explained on the Web site from the beginning”
(Cowan, 2011). Cowan concluded that even though he used technology that today’s youth was very familiar with, it did not make them digital learners.
Anoush Margaryan, Allison Littlejohn and Gabrielle Vojt (2011) explore this myth further in their article “Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital
technologies”. They conducted a study investigating how digital technology affects learning and socialization among university students. Their findings showed that digital natives do to some degree use more digital tools than previous generations. Nevertheless, the survey displayed that the participants used a limited range of digital tools and that they had little competence in how they could use them towards learning. For this reason Margaryan et al.
conclude that ‘digital natives’ are not as remarkable as others believe: “Students have limited understanding of what tools they could adopt and how to support their own learning. These findings challenge the proposition that young people have sophisticated technology skills, providing empirically-based insights into the validity of this assertion” (Margaryan et al., 2011).
Similar results are found in Kennedy and Judd’s research from 2011. They state that pupils’
information seeking behaviour has changed within the last ten years. Pupils tend to use Google and Wikipedia, instead of more reliable sources such as libraries and Google Scholar.
“Students knowingly preferences less reliable tools and sources in their search for study related information in order to access and gather information quickly and easily” (Kennedy and Judd, 2011:124). Kennedy and Judd’s findings show that students use sources that are simple to use, in order to find information more quickly, rather than using tools that are more complicated but at the same time might lead to more reliable results. Since the majority prefer using commercial websites and search engines rather than academic sources, it made them question how students are using these tools. They found this evidence in the works of Head and Eisenberg (2009,2010).
16
Students are simply using resources such as Wikipedia to ‘scope’ the academic ‘problem’ they are researching. However, there is also ample evidence showing that many students are relying extensively – and sometimes solely – on tools such as Google and Wikipedia for their scholary information seeking and are doing so in fairly unsophisticated manner (Kennedy and Judd, 2011:124).
Kennedy and Judd say that not many pupils live up to the standards of being a “digital native”. They only scratch the surface when gathering information. The goal is to be able to reproduce this information, not to learn it. These search strategies are not regarded to have high educational value (Kennedy and Judd, 2011).
Cowan, Margaryan et. al, Kennedy and Judd all display evidence that pupils are not always suited to find relevant and genuine information on their own and that they lack certain digital skills. They are not digital competent enough and their look-up strategies are not as sufficient as they should be in order to conduct reliable searches. We mentioned earlier Lin Jin’s (2013) study, where the results show that digital dictionaries can be helpful towards foreign language learners. Jin also finds that the subjects are able to evaluate the online dictionaries, locating their strengths and weaknesses compared to paper dictionaries. The subjects often used several sources when locating words, as they were aware of the margins of error in the dictionaries. Other sources included Google Search and Google Translate, which were often used as complementary tools to online dictionaries due to, “Google Translate’s lack of grammatical explanation and its perceived word-to-word function (Jin, 2013:524). However, Jin states that even though the subject’s conscious alertness to the instability of the digital dictionaries shows a certain amount of dependency and critical thinking, it does not
necessarily mean that the learners are able to evaluate the quality of the results generated from the different dictionaries, and she especially underlines learners at a lower proficiency level.
As previously shown, evaluating the quality of digital tools and strategies are crucial aspect to the term digital competence in both the definition of Erstad (2010) and Krumsvik’s (2007).
This is an important feature for being able to distinguish between reliable and unreliable digitalized sources, and lack of it might result in a learning deficit or confusion as to the words generated by the different digital dictionaries and other digital sources. With this in mind we conducted our research.
17
3. Methodology
Christoffersen and Johannessen (2012) describe a method in a research context as following a specific path towards a set goal. Briefly stated, a method is a specific tool that researchers use to find what they are looking for. As we are teacher students and our targeted research arena is the school, we automatically fall within the boundaries of social science. In the social sciences, research methods are applied in order to gain information about the social aspects of reality; about societal conditions and processes (ibid). Information is generally gathered from people in one way or another, which makes it essential to be conscious of the fact that people interprets reality differently, and knowing this, choose our methods accordingly. Bogdan &
Biklen (1998) characterizes research methods as: “…the specific techniques you use, such as surveys, interviews, observation – the more technical aspects of research” (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998:31). Furthering their explanation, they state that which methods that should be
employed are based on the research goal and has to be consistent with the general logic of the methodology that embodies the research.
3.1 Our study
Our study aims to gain information about what kind of look-up strategies the pupils use, but also the reasons behind their choice of strategy. This means that we need both information about the pupils’ habits and access to their thoughts. Our study was conducted in a lower secondary school in Tromsø, and was centered on a tenth grade class and its English teacher.
The reason we chose to conduct our research in a lower secondary school was because our educational program is specialized on the fifth to the tenth grade. Thus, we wanted to focus our research on this area so that the knowledge we gain from this project could better and more authentically be transferred to our future work place. An additional reason for choosing the lower secondary school in Tromsø was that these schools receive funding in order to equip pupils with their own personal computers. We believed that this would be important for our study because of our hypotheses that pupils use digital look-up strategies. However, the specific class that we conducted our research on had not gotten this funding, but the grades below (8th and 9th grade) had, resulting in the pupils from the tenth grade often using the lower grades’ computers.
A total of 21 people took part in our study. The 21 participants consisted of 20 pupils from the same class and their English teacher. The 20 pupils did not make the whole class, as there were pupils absent when we visited the school. All 20 pupils participated in a questionnaire
18
regarding their look-up strategies, while only four pupils were selected for interviewing.
These four pupils will collectively be regarded as our focus group, and consisted of two boys and two girls. The boys were interviewed in pairs, and so was the girls. The teacher was also interviewed regarding her view on the pupils’ strategies and other aspects of interest.
3.2 Qualitative versus quantitative methods
In a research capacity, one often distinguish between qualitative and quantitative methods.
The quantitative method is based on collecting data from a wide selection of people. The aim of this method is to generalize, and to find tendencies from the selection of people that can be transferred to the whole population. The qualitative method gathers information from a more concentrated selection of people, and is determined to enlighten more qualities about the gathered material, and is in other words a method that explore the empirical data more in- depth. The difference between the two methods concerns how they relate to the data/numbers that are gathered. As a simplified explanation of the difference between the two methods, one could say that in the quantitative method we are looking to gather less information from a larger selection, whilst in the qualitative method we are looking to gather more information and a deeper understanding of the information from a smaller selection of people (Bjørndal, 2008). By using the qualitative method, we get the opportunity to ask questions such as
“What are your thoughts about…?”, “What experiences do you have with…?” or “What do you feel about…?” By asking questions such as these one will often get a more authentic understanding of people’s reality. While observing a class of pupils in a reading session, we can see how these people are behaving. Some may be concentrating on what is being read, some may be whispering amongst themselves, while others might be staring blankly out of the window. We can observe their behavior, but we cannot know the reasons behind it. This is when qualitative methods comes into play, for example the interview. By asking these pupils why they are staring out the window or chitchatting instead of paying attention to the text that is being read, we will get a deeper understanding of their actions.
As we mentioned earlier, our study aims to gain information about what kinds of look-up strategies the pupils use, but also the reasons behind their choice of strategy. As our research question calls for an understanding of the pupils’ thoughts and feelings, we would need a conversation with them. With this in mind, it was clear to us that the interview would be a suitable method for us to use in order to achieve this kind of information. By using the
19
interview as a method, we would be able to shed some light on the why in our research question, as in why the pupils use their specific strategies. However, as the interview is a comprehensive method that demands a great amount of time, we recognized that this method would only provide us with empirical data from a limited amount of informants, given our narrow time span. As this was acceptable for the last part of our research question, we would be needing a bigger selection of informants for the first part of our research question; this because we wanted to look for tendencies and make generalizations from the data we
collected. Combining this with the fact that the first part of our research question does not call for an in-depth investigation into the people’s world of thoughts, we established that a
questionnaire would be fitting as a complementary method for providing us with sufficient empirical data from a sufficient amount of informants.
3.3 Selection of informants
The process of selecting informants started rather slowly. We sent out several emails to both schools and directly to English teachers in the hope that they would agree to participate in our study. Two teachers replied and agreed on participating in our study. One of them was the teacher that is involved in our paper, and the other one was a primary school teacher. As our area of focus was the lower secondary school, we did not further any more contact with the primary teacher. We would have wanted perspectives from several teachers, but as we did not manage to recruit any more, we would have to be satisfied with the one teacher that was willing to help us.
Selecting respondents for our questionnaire was easy enough, since the teacher allowed us to conduct the questionaire in her class, supplying us with 20 pupils as respondents.
The pupils for our focus group was singled out in compliance with the teacher. We wanted four pupils because we were confident that such an amount would present us with enough insight to discover tendencies and valuable information, and since we were also planning on using a questionnaire, we felt that four interviewee’s were enough. We wanted pupils with average grades in the English subject. This was because we wanted to find general tendencies representative of the average pupil, and not tendencies that were exclusively representative for the least or the most proficient pupils. We also wanted our focus group to be equally divided according to gender, i.e. two boys and two girls. The reason for this was that we wanted to ensure that we did not just gather material from a male point of view, but also from
20
a female’s point of view, in case there were discrepancies among the genders in accordance to their strategy usages.
In order to protect the informants true identities, we chose to give them fictional names. The two boys will be called Harald and Håkon, while the two girls will be called Mari and Anne.
3.4 Methods of data collection
In this part of the chapter, we will make accounts for our choice of methods, describe them and describe the process of conducting them
3.4.1 Questionnaire
As previously mentioned, our questionnaire (appendix 1) was conducted in a tenth grade class with 20 pupils participating. The aim of the questionnaire was to gain general knowledge about the pupils’ use of look-up strategies and would as mentioned function as a backdrop to the interviews and as inspiration for possible topics and discussions in the interviews. Kumar (1999) describes the questionnaire as “a written list of questions, the answers to which are recorded by respondents. In a questionnaire respondents read the questions, interpret what is expected and then write down the answers (Kumar, 1999:110). The questions in the
questionnaire are uniform, meaning that the questions are the same for every respondent, which is why the results from the questionnaire are often easy to generalize from. Creswell (2003) explains that the survey “provides a quantitative or numeric description of trends, attitudes, or opinions of a population. From sample results, the researcher generalizes or makes claims about the population (Creswell, 2003:153) (note that we are using Creswell’s definition of a survey because it captures the same aspects as the questionnaire).
Before the questionnaire was put to use, it was tested on two relatives. These were in the same age group as the pupils that participated in our field study. It was important for us to get feedback on the questionnaire before writing the final draft. We found their evaluation to be very valuable since they described what they expected of a questionnaire and which words they found hard to understand. We felt that their feedback helped us construct a questionnaire that would cause no misunderstandings or confusion.
3.4.2 Conducting the questionnaire
Our questionnaire consisted of 12 questions distributed between three parts. The first part was aimed towards the pupils’ usage of look-up strategies in school, the second part towards their
21
usage of look-up strategies in their spare time, whilst the third and last part focused on the quality of the look-up strategies. The questions were for the most part closed and structured, accompanied with alternatives in which they had to either arrange in order of importance or select the most fitting one. Only four of the 12 questions demanded an explanatory answer.
Christoffersen & Johannessen (2012) explains that there are different forms of the
questionnaire depending on its level of structuring. A structured questionnaire consists of closed questions with predetermined alternatives, whilst an unstructured questionnaire consists of open questions and offers more latitude to the respondent when answering. We chose for the most part structured questions, because we wanted the ability to generalize from the sample results and look for tendencies that could be transferrable to reality. The few semi- open questions that we used in our questionnaire were chosen in order to find out which strategies the pupils use and in order to find out the reasons behind the pupils’ answers on quality.
The whole of the questionnaire was written in Norwegian, both the introduction, the questions and the alternatives. Norwegian was chosen because we felt that the pupils would provide us with better and more authentic answers if they could use their mother tongue, in addition to that we eradicated the risk of having to explain different terms that would be harder for them to understand in English.
The questionnaire was conducted in writing, meaning that the pupils were given the questionnaire in paper format and that they had to use pen or pencil when answering. This was a conscious decision on our part, because we both have experienced technical issues when conducting questionnaires digitally in the past, and we wanted to prevent such issues from delaying or obstructing our research. After the questionnaire was finished and collected, we uploaded the results to www.surveymonkey.com where they were analyzed, compiled and portrayed through graphs and tables.
3.4.3 The qualitative interview
We conducted three different interviews in our study. The first interview was with the teacher and the second and third were with the focus groups. The reasoning behind using interviews as a method was because we wanted to know why the pupils use their specific look-up strategies and their thoughts and views on different aspects of language learning and digital
22
media. The interviews with the focus group also gave us the opportunity to discuss the results from the questionnaire in order to solve any issues or questions that might have emerged after the questionnaire was conducted, and to get a deeper understanding of the attitudes and perceptions behind their answers.
Kvale & Brinkmann (2012) describe the interview as conversation between an interrogator and one or more informants. The conversation is purposeful, where the interrogator has a clear goal or goals that he is trying to reach by conducting the interview. The qualitative interview is a form of method with the purpose of getting a detailed view of the informant’s reality, rather than a quick swipe at the surface, which other methods practices. The interview is not a regular conversation between two peers. The interviewer is the one making the questions and sets the structure of the interview, where the informant is left only to interpret and answer the questions. The balance of power that appears in an interview situation can leave the informants in a fragile state, and it is important for the interviewer to keep his eyes on the goal and to not disrespect or make the informant uncomfortable in any way.
Bogdan & Biklen (1998) distinguish between different types of qualitative interviews,
depending on how they are structured, ranging from the structured interview on one side, and all the way to the unstructured interview on the other. These interviews are different in the sense that more structured interviews give less freedom to the informants when answering, whilst less structured interviews give the informant more latitude to dictate what he/she wants to talk about. The semi-structured form of the interview operates as a combination between the two before-mentioned forms, ensuring that the data one collects is comparable across subjects, but loses the opportunity to experience what topics and points the informant emphasizes. We chose a semi-structured form of the interview for our study, both for
interviewing the pupils and for the teacher. The reasons for this choice were many. First of all we did not want a fully structured form of the interview because we felt that this would govern the conversation too much, leaving the informants with less latitude to be able to give an authentic view of his/her reality. Since we are partly looking for reasons behind their strategy usage, we needed to give the informants some space in order for us to achieve this sort of information. The structured interview also demands that the interviewer has a great amount of knowledge of the field that is being researched in order to develop adequate question. The fact that we have very limited experience as researchers makes this form of the interview less desirable for us to choose. On the other hand, we did not want a fully
23
unstructured form either, because we wanted to be able to control the topics to an extent and avoid collecting large quantities of unnecessary data. This would only result in more
transcriptional and analytical work, and given our small time-frame, we did not want to waste any time. In addition, the unstructured interview consists of more open questions, which issues a demand for the interviewer to have good knowledge of the field in order to ask good follow-up questions, which again leads back to our limited experience in the field of research.
3.4.4 Conducting the interviews
We developed interview guides (appendix 2 and 3) for all three of the interviews, one exclusively for the teacher interview and one for both of the focus group interviews.
According to Christoffersen & Johannessen (2012), semi-structured interviews are usually based on interview guides, which they describe as “a list of topics and general questions which will be looked at during the course of the interview” [ourtransl.] (Christoffersen &
Johannessen, 2012:79). In other words, the interview guide functions as a plan that directs the interview in specific directions, helps the interviewer/s to stay on focus and makes sure that the predetermined topics and questions are being discussed during the interview. The main reason for the development of interview guides in our study were the fact that we concluded that it would be beneficial for us to have a predetermined structural plan that we could follow and fall back on if we lost focus during the interview. This was our first major research project, and given our inexperience in the matter, we felt that a interview guide would be beneficial. We divided our interview guides into categories, which consisted of different questions related to the specific category. We also formulated possible answers and follow-up questions so that we were prepared for the different directions the interview might take.
It was important for us that the informants felt safe and comfortable with the interviews and the aspects related to them. Both the interview with the teacher and with the focus group were held in their own school. This decision was based on our assumptions that the informants would feel more at ease in the comfort of their own school. We felt that by conducting the interviews in a safe and familiar setting, the informants would be better suited for giving more reflective answers to our questions. Equal to the questionnaire, the interviews were all held in Norwegian. We felt that by pressuring the informants into speaking English, the informants’
could very likely become too self-aware of their own speech and care less about the quality and the content of their answers. Based on the fact that the informants were all Norwegian, we presumed that they would be more comfortable talking in their native tongue, which would lead to better articulated and more authentic answers. The focus group interviews were also
24
held in pairs, much for the same reasons as stated above. We felt that conducting the interviews in pairs would make the whole scenario less intimidating for the pupils, and that they would benefit from having a class mate for support.
Each interview was recorded by using a tape-recorder. By recording the interviews, it made it easier for us to give our full and unhindered attention to the informants, as we then avoided spending time writing down every single important point made. As we were able to fully concentrate on the informants and what they were saying, it was easier for us to construe and ask good follow-up questions. In retrospective, the tape recorder also gave us the opportunity to go back to different stages of the interview to explore and establish what was said, in addition to making it easier for us to analyze the content of meaning, as we had the whole interview on tape.
3.4.5 Transcription
After concluding the interviews, the interview material was transferred to a personal
computer, transcribed into a written format and then deleted from the tape recorder. When we transcribed the interviews, we did not rewrite their utterances into the official language of Norwegian (bokmål), but rather kept their dialects. The reason for this is because we noticed that some of the meaning connected to their utterances disappeared when we translated them.
However, when we present our findings later on in the paper, the results from both the interviews and the questionnaire will be presented in English, because we feel that putting in Norwegian utterances and statements will ruin the flow of the paper.
3.6 Reliability
Reliability in a research context is connected with how reliable the results that is gathered from the research methods are. Kumar (1999) states that the term is centered on the question of to what degree a research tool is “consistent and stable, and hence, predictable and
accurate” (Kumar, 1999:140). Kvale and Brinkmann (2012) explains that reliability speaks of how consistent and credible the results that is gathered through the specific research methods are and if other researchers can reproduce these results. We detect that there are several constraints in our study that could jeopardize the reliability of our research, and we will point to the most important ones here.
The first constraint of our study that we would like to highlight is that the results from our interviews are hardly generalizable. This is because of that our interviews only consisted of a few samples. Five informants is on the lower edge of what is expected for being able to
